R ule 1 0 o f t he R ules o f

t he C o urt o f

A p p ea l s o f

T en ne ssee p ro vid es: 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al c o urt b y m em o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ced en t i al v alue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ”, s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 24, 200 6 S es sio n KRIS TI LY N ( JAC KSON ) HOL LAN DS WORT H v. JA MES JEFF REY JAC KSON
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Dyer County No. 03C236 R. LeeMoore , Jr., Judge

No. W2005-02091-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Novem ber 21, 2006

The trial c ourt denied F ather’s p et ition to m odify custody of the pa

rties’ c hild upon finding no materia l chang e of c ircumstance s had occ urre d. We affirm in part and re mand. Tenn. R. App . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed in p art; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Thomas Ewe ll W eakle y , Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, J ames Jeffre y

J ackson.
De a n Po we ll D e dmo n, Willi a ms L e wi s Je n kin s, Jr., a ndJaso n L a do n H ud so n, fo r the app e lle e , K ri sti Ly n (Jackson) Hollandsworth.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
P e t i t i o n e r / A p p e l l a n tJ a m e s J e f

f r e y J a c k s o n ( “ F a t h e r ” ) a n d R e s p o n d e n t / A p p e l l e e Kr i s t i Lyn (Jackson) Hollandsworth (“Mother” ) were mar ried in January

2000 and their c hild, Alec Seth, was bo rn in A ug us t 20 00 . T he pa rt ie s w e re div or c e d o n s tip ulate d g rou nd s by fi na l de c re e e nte re d in-2-

Marc h 2004. The trial c ourt awa rded the parties joint custody of Alec and named Mother primary residential pa

rent. After g ranting Father a cre dit f or two minor children f

rom a pre vious marriag e, the trial court set Father’s c hild support obligation at $68.54 per wee k; or dere d him to pay medical bil ls i nc ur

re d b y Mo the r andre ma ini ng un pa id a s o f F e br ua ry 20 , 2 00 4; andor de re d F ath er t o maintain full health insuranc e for Alec. T he trial c ourt order ed the pa rties to div i d e equa lly

any u n co v er ed m ed i ca l b i l l s o r d e d u c t i b l es
. A d et ai l ed p ar en t i n g p l an wa s en t er ed es t ab l i s h i n g a re sid e nti a l/v isi ta tio n s c he du le a ndse tti ng fo rth th e stand ardpa re nti ng or de rs
. The c urre nt focus of the on-goi ng acrimony betwee n these pa

rties arises from F ather ’s Oc t o b er2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , p et i t i o n t o m o d i fych i l d cu s t o d y
. I n h i s p et i t i o n , Fa t h eral l ege d a m at er i al ch an ge in circumstanc es had oc curr ed and that chang e of c ustody from Mother to F ather

was in the c hild’s best interest. Father alleg ed Mother had interfer ed with his telephone c onversation with the child; had filed an unwar

rante d telephone hara ssment c harg e; had not maintained he r own home; make s neg ative comments a

bout and/or exposes the child to neg ative comments ab o u t Fathe r; has made false cl aim s about Father to DCS; and has eng ag ed in a c ourse of hostili ty ag ainst Father. In her response and counte r-pe tition for contempt, Mother denie d Father’s a lleg ations and alleg ed F ather had fa iled to pay

outstanding medical bills and one-ha lf of uncove red me dical expenses as or dere d by the trial court in the March 2004 decr ee. She counter -petitioned for a judgme nt in the amount of $917.73 to rei mb u r s e h e r f o r me d ic a l e xp e n s e s o u ts tan d in g a s o f F e b ru ar y 2 0 , 2 0 0 4

. Sh e f

u r th er petitioned for a

judgme nt of $417.50 to pay one-ha lf of Alec ’s uncove red me dical expenses. Following a lengthy hearing on Aug ust 1, 2005, the trial court found that, althoug h neither p ar t y wa s b eh av i n g i n a m an n erco n s i s t en twi t h t h e b es ti n t er es to f t h ei r c h i l d , n o m at er i al ch an ge of circ umstance ha d occur red w arr an t i n g modification of custody . The trial c ourt furthe r orde red Father to pay

medical bills in acc o rd an ce wi t h t h e Mar ch 2004 dec ree and as attached a s trial e xhibi ts, a ndor de re d Fath er t o c omp ly wi th the pr ov isi on s o f the pa re nti ng plan w ith re sp e c t to medical e x penses incur

red on be half of A lec. The trial court found no w illful contempt on the part of either party , but “admonished” the parties to follow the terms and c onditions of the pare nting plan. The trial c ourt enter ed its final orde r on Aug ust 21, 2004, and Father filed a timely notice of a

ppeal to this C ourt. We aff

irm in part and r emand.

Issues Presented
Father pre sents the following issues, as slightly stated, for

our re view:
1. Whether the trial c ou rt er re d in failing to find that a material chang e of ci rc umstances ha d occur red suc h that the trial court then should have proce eded to conduct a compar ative fitness analy sis, and, as a result thereof, chang e custody

of the minor child fr om Mother to Father.
2. Whether t h e trial court err ed in fa iling to g ive Father c redit for payment of outstanding me dical/dental e x penses i n the amount of $711.80 a g ainst the-3- oth e r o uts ta nd ing me dic a l/d e nta l e xpe ns e s whi c h Fathe r ha d b e e n p re vio us ly direc ted to pay

in the final dec ree of divorce

. Stan dard of Revie w
We re vie w the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t de novo with a pre sumption of corre ctness. Te nn. R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Berryhill v. Rhode s , 21 S.W .3d 188, 190 (Tenn. 2000) . We will not reverse the trial court' s fac tual finding s unless they are contra

ry to the prepondera nce of the evidenc e. Id. Our re vie w o f the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion s o n matte rs of l aw is de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Bo wde n v . W ar d , 27 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2 0 0 0 ). I n s ofar as the trial c ourt’s de te rm inatio ns are ba se d on its a sse ssm e nt o f w itn e ss c re dib ili ty , a pp e llate c ou rt s w ill no t r e e va luate that assessment abse nt evidence of cle ar and convincing evidenc e to the contra ry
. J on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W .3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002)

. A party petitioning for

modification of a va lid child custody order must demonstrate a ma te ri a l c ha ng e of c ir c ums ta nc e s ha s o c c ur re d w hic h ma

ke s a c ha ng e in c us tod y

in the be st i nte re st of the child. Cranston v. Combs , 1 0 6 S. W. 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 4 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 3 )

. T h u s , th e c o u r t mu s t u ti li ze a two-part t est in determining whe ther a chang e in custody

is warr anted. Id. First, it must determine whether a materia l c hang e of c ircumstance s has occ urre d that aff ects the c hildren' s well-being

. Id. Second, if it finds a material chang e of circ umstances, the court must utili ze the fac tors enumer ated in Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 36 -6 -1 06 to de te rm ine wh e the r a c ha ng e in c us tod y is in th e best interest of the child. Id.
Anal y sis
Father’s brief to t h i s C o urt includes a twe nty -one pa g e Statement of F acts outlining how Mother int erf

ere d with his relationship wit h Alec in the se ven months betwee n the parties’ divorce and the f iling of F ather ’s petit ion. I n summation, Father asserts Mother’s “ ong oing a ctions towards a lie natin g the fathe r fr om Al e c ’s lif e ” c on sti tut e a ma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums ta nc e a ndthat, b e c aus e F a the r i s th e c omp arativ e ly mor e fi t pa

re nt, c ha ng e in c us tod y

is i n th e c hil d’ s b e st int e re st. He a lso a sse rt s th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in ov e rl oo kin g pay me nts of $7 11 .8 0 a nd in faili ng to a wa rdhim a c re dit in this a mou nt a g a ins t ou tst a nd ing me dic a l bi lls

. Up on re vie w o f the re c or d in thi s case , we agre e wi th the tr ia l c ou rt that ne ith e r p are nt i s a c tin g in the be st i nte re st o f A le c , that bothMo the r andF a the r h a ve e ng a g e d inina pp ro pria te be ha vio r. Th is b e ha vi or in c lud e s ta kin g pic tur e s a ndvid e os a t th e “ e xch a ng e of

. . . [th e ] ch ild ;” makin g ne g a tiv e c omm e nts abo ut the oth e r; e ng a g ing in sq ua bb le s at e ve nts lik e Ea ste r e g g hu nts and Ha lloween pa

rties at day car e. I n g ener al, althoug h the g uardia n ad litem f ound that both Mother and F ather l o v e and c are for Ale c, they have e ng ag ed in beha vior more a kin to that of spoiled children f ighting over a

favorite toy

rathe r than a s pare nts committ ed to ensuring a stable, loving upbring ing of

their child. As the tria l court noted, t h e p ar t i es’ post-divorc e conduc t does not differ signific antly

from their c onduct at the time of the divorce

.-4-

The trial court’s order in this case includes a detailed summary

of the e vidence , a succ inct and ac curate statement of the law, and inc ludes fac tual determinations larg ely based on matters of cre dibilit y . Upon re view of the rec ord, we ag ree with the trial court’ s determination that there is no chang e of c ircumstance involving either the parties’ child or a

pare nt’s circ umstance that would adver sely aff ect Ale c. The conduct of

both parties has not chang ed since the entry

of the c ustody

order soug ht to be modified. The c onduct of both parties could hav e b een rea sonably anticipated by

both parties. The re is no chang e of c ircumstance that would aff ect Alec’ s well-be ing in a materia l way . The [c] ourt, in fac t, finds that the re is no material chang e in circ umstances. Petitioner’s reque st for cha ng e in custody is a continuation of his disag ree ment with the [c] ourt’s initial custodydecision.
F a the r a lso a sse rt s th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y faili ng to g ive him

a c re dit again st me dic a l bi lls whi ch M o ther c laimed wer e outstanding as of F ebrua ry 2004 for pay ments totaling $711.80. He further asserts that the balanc e owe d on a hospital ac coun t i s $ 6 4 3 an d not $917 as alleg ed by Mother. F ather

submits t he trial c ourt made no a djudication whatsoeve r as to the pr oper amount owed or to whether

Father wa s entitled to a cre dit.
I n its August 2005 orde r, the trial c ourt order ed F ather
to pay immediately any and all outstanding medical bills incurre d by responde nt . . . that rema ined unpaid as of Fe bruary

20, 2004 (D y er sburg Reg ional Center, I nd e pe nd e nt R a dio log y

a ndF a mil y Care ) as we re a tta c he d as Exhib its A, B a ndC to the F ina l D e c re e of

Di vo rc e fi le d inthi s c a se on Ma rc h 1 0, 20 04

. . . . Mr

. Jac ks on is also order ed to comply wi t h the provisions of the orig inal and F inal Dec ree of Divorce in connec tion with pay ment of medica l bills of the pa rties’ c hild. Although the trial court a djudicated the matter by ordering Fathe r to pay

outstanding me dical ba la nc e s a ndto c omp ly

wi th the 20 04 de c re e , w e a g re e that the c ou rt ’s or de r i s in de te rm inate wi th re sp e c t to the a mou nt c ur

re ntl y ou tst a nd ing a nda s to wh e the r F a the r i s d ue a c re dit fo r amou nts pa id as evid en ce d b y re ceipts in the re cord. We a ccor dingly rema nd this matter to the trial court f or determination of a def

inite amount of Father’s oblig ation for medic al expenses and f or a determination of whether Father is entitled to a cr edit ag ainst medical e x penses f or amounts paid. We finally

join the trial court i n ad m o nishing Mother and F ather

to comply

with the pare nting plan in letter and in spirit, and in noting that willful violations of the court’s orde rs may result in e ither sanc tions or a finding of conte mpt. I t is clear that Alec is caug ht in the cross-f ire of Mo the r andF a the r’ s o n- g oin g a nde sc a la tin g ho sti lit y toward e a c h o the r. Cle arl y , th is i s n ot i n Al e c ’s be st i nte re st. We u rg e the pa rt ie s to re c on sid e r the ir

c ou rs e of c on du c t be fo re it n e g a tiv e ly imp a c ts the ir

c hil d, wh ic h it

a lmo st c e rt a inl y

wi ll.-5- Hol din g
We a f f irmt h e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n td e n y i n g F a t h e r ’ s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y
. We rema nd this matter for de termination of the a mount of F ather ’s outstanding obligation for medica l e x p e n s e s i n l i g h t o f a m o u n t s p a i d

. C o s t s o f t h i s ap p e a l ar e t a x e d o n e
- h a l f t o t h e A p p e l l e e , Kr i s t i Lyn (Jackson) Hollandsworth, a nd one-ha lf to the Appellant, James J eff rey J ackson, and his surety , for w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________

DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE